Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considers a state prisoner’s habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with an order to resolve the filing-fee status, while directing random assignment of a district judge.
Holdings
- After weighing the applicable five factors, the court found that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate because Petitioner failed to resolve the fee status as directed and failed to comply with court rules and orders.
Questions Presented
- Whether the action should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court's order to submit an in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee.
- Whether the five-factor dismissal framework supports dismissal as a sanction for Petitioner's noncompliance.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (6)
- Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)(followed)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…